Ask HN: Why are comments here overwhelmingly critical?
Comments lauding findings or praising efforts seem to be valued less than those that find fault.
You can even see it in the title of the OP, in the word "overwhelmingly". That's excessive: the negative bias is noticeable, but if you look closely, it's not overwhelming. (To make up some numbers, it's more like 60-40, not 90-10.)
However, it often feels as if it is overwhelming; in fact, one or two datapoints, plus negativity bias, are enough to create just such a feeling. The feeling gets expressed in ways that trigger similar feelings in other people, so we end up with a positive* feedback loop.
The interesting question is, what factors mitigate this? how do we dampen negativity bias? or, how do we get negative feedback into our positive feedback loop of negative affect? That must also be happening all the time, or we'd be in a "war of all against all", which isn't the case, though (again) it may feel like it.
* ['positive' in the sense of increasing; a positive loop of negative affect!]
One thing is to foster a culture where substantiation is expected in negative responses (and downvotes) (i.e. we expect a genuine effort to support a different perspective). I've never downvoted, but the lazy drive-by criticisms always tempt me.
People also recognized each other far more often, sometimes on a first name basis, which is maybe just a function of growth. It may also behoove someone to pick their words more carefully if someone recognized anothers work 2-3 years after they were nasty to them. Or possibly growing acceptance of throwaways, multiple accounts.
It was pointed out in a comment I really liked a while back that HN demonstrates that one can be critical without being mean. But it also takes effort of the person receiving feedback to understand the one giving is, usually, doing so to help, not tear them down. Which is almost always not the case on Twitter, Instagram, FB, et al. And I've seen very thoughtful, intelligent people say they just don't read comments at all on things they worked on.
If anyone is interested in trying this themselves here is 2016 - https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2016-05-20
We all have lots of ideas. Most are bad. The worst are easily self-evaluated and discarded.
The next layer are the ones that are bad, but -you- haven't figured out why yet. The best thing here is to bounce them off others to see if they can spot the flaw.
If you don't do this, or you ignore it, then you build something, it doesn't matter how well you built it, it's still bad. Lots of stuff on HN falls into this category.
Some tiny portion of ideas are good. But then execution matters (a lot). Like maybe someone else has done it already. Or your execution has bad UI or whatever.
Lastly, no idea is good for everyone, no product is executed to everyone's taste. There is always some quota to ehom it doesn't apply.
And thats before we get to tribal reflexes (me and mine are better than you and yours) - like the endless Linux, Windows, Mac comments.
Tldr; there are more negative comments because there are more bad ideas ranging good ideas.
PS - having bad ideas, badly executing them, and seeing it get killed are all fine. We call that experience.
However, when promoting another "AI" (and before: crypto/nft etc.) project here be prepared it will be evaluated properly and you may hear an ugly truth about it. [0]
[0] But this shouldn't discourage you - vide the most famous comment on Hacker News.
Finding fault, critiquing, etc. as long as it's done respectfully tend to add a lot more value.
This means conversations skew to be constructive/critical/negative.
Most of us here aren't 5 years old. We don't need lollipops, stickers and participation awards.
We need solid info to help us figure out what holds water and plug the leaks if it doesn't.
Politely lying to spare our feelings doesn't pay the bills. Figuring out where it's broken so it can be fixed sometimes does.
1. An individual's reasoning workload is reduced by forming a bias. The gaps left by this bias can be filled with others' reasoning. For example if Gail focuses on why a business idea is good and Bob focuses on why that same idea is bad, they reduced the total amount of reasoning required by 50%.
2. If strong reasons are always prepared for everything, effort is wasted when others are easy to convince. So people start with minimal effort, producing weak reasons (why the business idea is good or bad). Gail and Bob keep responding to each other's reasons with stronger reasons only until necessary. After reaching consensus further reasoning is not required.
"Comments lauding findings or praising efforts seem [TO] be valued less than those that find fault."
1. People can style up a dookie to look like gold. Everyone does that. I don’t want a dookie.
2. Is it actually doing what’s supposed to do? Can it handle more difficult use cases? What’s it actually good for?
3. Most software is garbage held together by taping other garbage together. Sorry. That’s reality. And that’s fine. Even if it makes hundreds of millions of dollars.
If I'm building something new, or launching a startup, there is not much benefit from encouragement. I don't want to hear "well done, this is so cool".
I want to know as many flaws that I might have overlooked as possible, as quickly as possible - so that in the (highly likely) event that my idea is fundamentally flawed, I can move on to smth else instead of keeping wasting time on it.
Not in all cases, but in a lot of them.
I leave you with a fun quote:
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
P.S. I agree with others that "overwhelmingly" is a bit strong :)
It's easier to find fault with something bad than to explain why something is good.
Also remember context. The CmdrTaco of Slashdot’s infamous quick take on the iPod is always made fun of, but he lacked the perspective at the time to understand why the iPod was such an important product. In the context he had, the Creative Nomad was objectively a better product.
-Head of Imperial Security
Also, there's probably bias in that the less work and mental effort required of a comment, the more likely you will make it. Fault-finding can be productive, while "good job" comments maybe not so much. Therefore, the combination of that sort of comment being "easy" to make while also being perceived as more useful and more likely upvoted explains why we see more of them, to me anyway.
There is no equivalent for comments that praise; they just convey "I like it". If there are too many positive comments, it can be annoying. Online culture has a pejorative for this: "circle jerk", referring to group masturbation.
(Praise can be accompanied by insight that is useful to other admirers of the work. I don't want to claim that praise is always "content free".)
While everyone likes positive comments and praise of their work, only the criticisms are actionable.
Note that a comment like:
"Wow, I really love the application and have used it daily for years. But it would be nice if it quit without are-you-sure prompting when the document has not been touched."
is actually two comments. "I like it" praise, plus a separate criticism that is actionable.
A comment like:
"I really like this track; the synthesizer part reminds me of <track by other, unrelated artist>."
says something beyond "I like it". It is actionable in a different way. People can look that up and compare.
But I find so many many comments are critical and ill-informed. They’re contrarian but unnuanced.
And people with high karma (>15k) overwhelmingly seem to be the least insightful and most petulant and critical. Examples abound. They’re just low quality, similar to how cranky geezers spewing whatever nonsense they want because “they’ve earned it”
Maybe because they have karma to spend?
I feel that to enable good discussion, there should be a diminishing returns to upvotes to high karma folks.
We should also downvote unthoughtful comments more liberally. Otherwise rot sets in.
I don't think there's usually much (if any) value agreeing with people or saying, "well done". If someone is doing something right or well then the result of that should be obvious to them. If I build a great app for example I don't need people to praise me for it – there's no real value in that other than to stroke my ego – and the usage of the app would be far more insightful of its true quality anyway. The only thing that would be useful to me is understanding how the app could be better and to understand that I need people to be critical to point out things I may have missed.
That said, I find I often do this in person and sometimes I have to explain to people why I'm being so critical because it's generally not that I think the person is doing a bad job, but simply that I see ways they could do a better job and want to help. I am making more effort these days to start my criticism with genuine praise because I understand there is risk of demotivation if you come across as too critical. I try to do that here too... I think as a rule balancing critical comments with praise such that the criticism is representative is probably the right way to go about it.
As a community I also think this is likely a product of who we are. Techies are problem solvers, and to be good problem solvers we need to have a good eye for problems. I can only speak for myself, but I see problems everywhere, and that's not necessarily bad thing, but again I think you have to be self-aware that you're doing this and understand where to dial it back – which wasn't something I was always great at doing.
These days when I'm trying to enjoy myself I do my best to try shut that part of my brain off. My girlfriend used to comment how we could go to the nicest restaurants or have wonderful days together and all I could do is recall the negatives and how things could have been better. I realised this attitude bled into my friendships and relationships where despite having lovely friends and an amazing partner I would obsessively focus on the things I didn't like and couldn't help but be critical of them both in my own head and in conversation with them. Being self-aware of this has been a huge breakthrough in my life – it's really important to balance your critical thoughts with an appreciation of the good.
I think perhaps some people are also critical because being critical is often a way to look smarter and above something/someone. I don't know how common this is here, but it's something I've seen in people from time to time in my own life. Generally they are insecure people, but it is worth remembering that there are people out there who seem to just get a kick out of shitting on people – you have to be a little cautious about how you weight the comments of these types of people.
Not sure I've really answered your question, but it would be interesting if others relate to what I'm saying at all as I've always suspected this explains why this community is so critical.
Just look around for many examples.